|
Post by satansrini on Nov 1, 2011 14:03:36 GMT -6
Earth population today has crossed over 7 billion. The earth population has been increasing by just over 1 Billion every decade for the past 4 decades atleast. At this rate the Earth population will be atleast 15 billion by 2100 A.D.
As the population is increasing at this rate, the real-estate - in this case - Earth is coming at a premium. We can't just imagine how life will be when the population is double what we have now.
We as a people must do something about this. I have my views. I will share them but id like to invite some participation first.
Ofcourse, no complex problem has 1 simple solution. The poll is about which do you think is the 'best' or the 'most important' step.
Please do share your views.
Regards, Srinivas
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2011 20:49:56 GMT -6
I checked "Use Forceful Methods". I think the governments of the world, particularly those places in the world which are densely populated should make birth control mandatory and one woman should only be allowed to have two children.
But that's my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Nov 1, 2011 21:49:02 GMT -6
They already do that in China. A family is only allowed to have one child. Since many families want to have male children the girls often end up "accidentally" dying during childbirth or shortly after. I think this problem will take care of itself eventually. The planet can only maintain a certain population before food and medicines and other natural resources are no longer sufficient to sustain all of the people at which point the population will be reduced, either through disease, famine, wars or some other manner. The Earth will have the final say on this matter.
|
|
|
Post by satansrini on Nov 2, 2011 1:09:04 GMT -6
Thank you Lorelei and Skywalker Let us see if and when more people chip in with their views. In the mean time, I would initiate with my view. Though I want to say a lot. I would reserve it for my next post. The following is what I had also posted on facebook - which is quite concise. Like a summary. But when I want to discuss it in detail, it will go into pages!!! The following is a UN Projection of world population (courtesy: wikipedia): Projection for 2100 (100% chance that 99.99% of us here won't be alive - so no point betting!) - i think realistically will be - somewhere (at the higher end) between medium & high. I think mankind should have a slightly different approach to life from now on: 1. Invest as little as possible of money/wealth, resources - both man and material and time in useless pursuits like entertainment (movies, sports & such). 2. Put as much force as possible towards protecting ourselves thru putting technology to use in bettering the atmospheric conditions for life on earth. Like may be filling up the ozone gaps, artificial atmosphere adjustments, inter-planetary mining etc. 3. Find another Earth and the means to get there as quickly as possible. No, I am not talking standard UFO phenomenon and the "truth is out there" stuff.... As more and more people are born, less and less animals and plants get to occupy space on Earth - reduction of population. Yeah, war is another option.. and I think mother Earth wouldn't mind a few hundred million or even a billion people dying to help maintain balance. But the problem is atleast equal number of other lifeforms will perish.. so we can't have that! Also, war results in death of young people and the old linger. That is not a healthy sign. Augmentation of place and space accommodate more and more seems to be the only possible solution. I voted for "Find another Earth". Regards, Srinivas
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Nov 2, 2011 7:31:13 GMT -6
That red line looks like the same projection fot the US debt. If they can somehow fix that then they could probably fix the population explosion also. If they can't even balance a budget I doubt they will be able to fix anything else. It will depend on the world's leaders to determine what happens. Given how poorly they have handled things so far I would say we are doomed.
|
|
|
Post by satansrini on Nov 2, 2011 9:18:35 GMT -6
That red line looks like the same projection fot the US debt. If they can somehow fix that then they could probably fix the population explosion also. If they can't even balance a budget I doubt they will be able to fix anything else. It will depend on the world's leaders to determine what happens. Given how poorly they have handled things so far I would say we are doomed. One of the things I was going to discuss in details. The whole concept of 'Global Economics' of today needs to be re-worked upon and revamped. We should quickly find a means to do away with Fiat Currency.. No papers with Gandhi or Lincoln or Washington or Queen Elizabeth or whoever on them.. Real Metal.. Real Material.. First step would be to globalize by having a uniform currency. Regards, Srinivas
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2011 11:41:01 GMT -6
I disagree Srini. Europe already tried this with the Euro. Look how badly that turned out... Germany has had to bail out Greece because of its own problems with spending. Imagine what would happen if we were to have a global economy... take into account all the poor starving people in third world countries... all the civilized countries would have to financially support them. This will cause a huge economic problem and there will never be enough money to go around.
Bad idea. Very bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Nov 2, 2011 12:03:15 GMT -6
Part of his idea is good. I like the part about doing away with paper money and going back to coins that had actual metal in them...silver, gold, copper, etc... Up until the late 1960s coins were actually worth the amount of metal that was in them and because of that their value was relatively stable. A dollar in 1900 was worth almost the same amount as a dollar in 1960. It wasn't until after that, when coins became worthless and the government started printing huge amounts of worthless paper money that money actually became worthless. Now they are spending trillions of dollars that they don't even have and the dollar just keeps declining in value. Other countries are doing the same thing. This is why the global economy is going down the toilet right now. Irresponsible people are throwing money around like it is meaningless, and their irresponsible behavior is causing it to become meaningless. Unfortunately, the solution to the problems is in the hands of the same irresponsible people who caused the problem which means it is not going to get fixed. Forming a one world government or having a world-wide form of currency would only be benificial if the people in charge of that one government were responsible, compassionate and honest people. I don't see any politicians who fit that description.
|
|
|
Post by paulette on Nov 2, 2011 14:38:29 GMT -6
OK. I know this is going to be an unpopular post. I voted for other. What I think needs to happen is a very fast acting relatively painless plague. The incubation period should be long and the vectors of spread touch and aerosol (coughing sneezing) with a good survival time of the infectious agent. Money, doorhandles, gas dispensers, airplanes, wall street ...everywhere....contaminated. Subsistence farmers in the outback (with their own seed and means of survival) get a slightly better shot at survival. People living on small islands and in isolated pockets - ditto. Headache and slight unwellness in the evening. Dying in bed later. I'm not proposing doing it myself. I proposing that I would be one of the ones dead in bed. Too many people! Too much attached to having more children. All populations wanting to have IT all...the plastics and the cars and the fancy foods grown somewhere else and oh yeah...that tasty meat that takes an acre per cow to grow.
Some believe there have been attempts at this already. By humans of varying political stripes. And Ancient Aliens (a not particularly believable UFO TV show) proposed that there were historical accounts of air ships and strange rain and visitations prior to plagues. Africa is about half the population it was due to AIDS - supposedly a disease that was there all along? Along with Marbourg and Ebola? But which is now popping up here and there. Africa might well be a test site. Color me paranoid.
But I can see the impartial reality here. No one would chose to tell their child - you can't have children. No one would consign their variety of humanity to the compost pile. People living in terrible situations still have children and they love them and want them to live and have more children. Its our biological imperative. About one half to one third of the population surviving would buy us some time and take the pressure off the rest of the inhabitants of the planet who are disappearing forever daily and hourly.
I guess this is radical enough! My apologies for my opinion but remember, I include myself and my own in this plan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2011 15:01:11 GMT -6
I actually somewhat agree with you Paulette... believe it or not lol...
It would also help if the government stopped rewarding low income women for having babies... the more babies they have, the more money and food stamps they get out of our pockets. The wealthy people are using birth control and not having babies, whereas the low income poverty level people just keep breeding like rabbits and taking in more and more of our tax dollars. It's madness and it needs to stop.
I know I can't afford to have a child. This is why I practice abstinence and birth control. I don't want to become a bigger burden on society and my family than I already am.
|
|
|
Post by satansrini on Nov 2, 2011 15:06:30 GMT -6
Hi Lorelei, First of all, what i am saying is sort of imaginative and theoretical. It takes decades before something like this can happen. I totally realize this won't practically work as there are very strong complications. There is no such unity in this world that could make this immediately post. Europe already tried this with the Euro. Look how badly that turned out... Germany has had to bail out Greece because of its own problems with spending. - Right. We have to look at these aspects both subjectively and objectively. Yes they tried this with Euro. The motive was to unite all European countries so their position will be relatively stable as compared to the US Dollar. For quite sometime they achieved it. Even today Euro is stronger than US $. US $ these days is most susceptible to changes. The motive behind my suggestion that there should be a universal currency is to ensure economical stability across the globe. For example America gets Fuel at far cheaper prices than the rest of the world. Oil producing countries like Nigeria pay more than the US for fuel!!!! A universal currency makes trade simpler and smaller economies such as African or Eastern European economies will stabilize with this. It has its benefits.... atleast there would be a 25% reduction in complexity of accounting (the most hated subject to me!!). The reason why they got Euro is very different from having a Universal Currency. You should also note that nations of the European Union did not totally banish their local currency. For example Sweden would deal both in Euros and Swedish Kroner. This complicates things a lot. Imagine what would happen if we were to have a global economy... take into account all the poor starving people in third world countries... all the civilized countries would have to financially support them. - "Civilized Countries" ??!!!!! In what sense?!!! Theres only wealthy and unwealthy.. Nobody is anymore or less civilized than the others. Atleast thats what I have come to learn. The poor starving third world countries are a result of extensive exploitation through colonization by the Europeans of beginning 16th century. When you govern a place just to have control over the natural resources of the land, you generally forget to take care of the development and administration of aboriginal population. If you are smarter and more intelligent than them, it is convenient to not teach them what you know.. lest they would come back at you. Exactly what the colonists did in Africa. So post 2nd world war.. they started to come to 'realization' that colonizing is 'bad'.. that each should be entitled to their 'freedom'. Conveniently they left. Most uneducated Africans came to power. They probably never managed their family with money. They had to run a country. Too much power at once corrupted them. Eventually poverty. How did the 'Civilized Countries' get to be so rich with virtually nothing? Atleast the US has some mineral deposits and food to boast of. Australia is another place with some minerals. In comparison with most third world countries including India, esp. Africa the entire Civilized World has far less natural wealth. Without natural wealth in their territory, how did they get so wealthy? While countries with Gold, Diamond & Petroleum deports starve for food? Africa even today happens to be the most rich place in terms of natural resources hands down. But like you said they don't have food to eat. I don't mean offense but playing big brother is easy when we have something to gain. NATO forces put super strength to usurp Gadaffi recently. But they never made an attempt to ever stabilize Sudan or Somalia which have been unstable for decades. That is because Libya has oil. The only support these nations extend is arms and military support. Selling munitions is the greatest trade. Its the military victory esp. in World War II that decided who was going to call shots in the world, who was going to get rich. All this might seem nonsense and I did not want to bore any of you to death with this. But perspectives are different. If we have plundered so much from them, I guess it is ok to financially support them for sometime not expecting anything to gain. But I can see how that is impossible. This will cause a huge economic problem and there will never be enough money to go around. - That is what i am trying to say - has to change. We are now 'money centric' which doesn't actually hold value until every one accepts it. Look at currency re-valuations in African countries for example. It will give you a perspective. We have to move from being 'money centric' to 'resource centric'. But it will take easily a decades or even a century for this. Hi Skywalker, Forming a one world government or having a world-wide form of currency would only be benificial if the people in charge of that one government were responsible, compassionate and honest people. I don't see any politicians who fit that description. - Politicians are actually far less corrupt than we imagine. They are actually highly self-serving. If being good serves them right for the time being to advance they will cease to be corrupt. No one does things to improve the condition of those who depend on them. But what they do is serve themselves and the development is merely a by-product. As long as those in power simply believe re-investing time in pursuits such as unification of a lot of things, it will happen. Though, as i said earlier - this unity is not practical at this point of time. But some external force (like that speech of Ronald Reagan) has to be there for unity. To go out into space and colonize other planets, we first need to be 'one planet' and 'one civilization' not '205 United Nations of Earth'. For that.. the first thing is an alteration in a sense of identity and belonging. Once that happens, everything else like currency and so forth would seem quite trivial. Regards, Srinivas
|
|
|
Post by ufo4peace on Nov 12, 2011 3:43:50 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2011 10:49:04 GMT -6
I think when 'mother nature' gets tired of the load the death rate will escalate via natural disasters. What 'we' can do about the population is A..not have children. My kids decided long ago that the world is no place to raise or try to raise children and just aren't having any. They make do by taking in abused animals and using up the nurturing love on them. As individuals..what 'we' can do is to act responsibly..what the government does..will be a different story. Our constitutional laws are there to protect the people from a dictatorial government..moves have to be considered very carefully..are we taking away someone's rights to their religious practices?? Very easy for us to say..hey too many danged people..do something. Different if it's a part of your beliefs. We can sit back and compare graphs and make it look very clinical...sometimes these issues are anything but. Paranormal is easier
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2011 13:28:48 GMT -6
I agree Jo, and I'm glad your children are intelligent, educated and honest enough to feel that way about the world.
Me however, I'm the opposite.
I want my genes to be passed on into the next generation. Call me selfish, but I am. I want at least 3 kids. Finding a man first though is the hard part...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2011 2:57:47 GMT -6
Well that would be a good first step ;D
|
|
|
Post by ufo4peace on Nov 13, 2011 2:58:46 GMT -6
Or maybe aliens are going to invade and take over the planet.
"Eventually those hybrids as we call them are going to populate the planet." -- Abductee 'Mark' - Miles Obrien CNN News, New York
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2011 11:16:17 GMT -6
We've pretty near destroyed anything of use and there really isn't much evidence regarding hybrids. We tend to get scraps of information then run with them like a shark taking bait..snowballing into huge improbabilities. Trying to create a hybrid would not be an easy task..the universe took a particularly long time developing the current races..I don't believe clever ET's could play god so easily. Then there is the entity Han who says the hybrid attempts were not successful. I think just because those who have been abducted or contacted have formed theories..doesn't make them right..they could be misdirected and misinformed by those same contacts. Being an abductee doesn't make me any kind of authority. I observed things about them..but that information comes from explosions of memory that can be manipulated by my own protective brain or misinformation planted by creatures protecting themselves. If they haven't invaded in all of this time..well they're probably waiting until Obama gets out of office so they don't have to deal with that ;D
|
|
|
Post by ufo4peace on Nov 15, 2011 2:14:00 GMT -6
Being an abductee doesn't make me any kind of authority. I observed things about them..but that information comes from explosions of memory that can be manipulated by my own protective brain or misinformation planted by creatures protecting themselves. Here's the video. It's abductee toward the end. I remember one of Bud Hopkins interview's before he passed away stating he was concerned for his granddaughter from what he gleaned from abductees.
|
|
|
Post by ufo4peace on Nov 15, 2011 3:32:59 GMT -6
A solution for world population would be disclosure. Of course, that comes at a price. People making billions off oil and defense would crash overnight. But I believe that will eventually happen anyway because you can't keep things secret forever.
|
|
|
Post by satansrini on Nov 19, 2011 7:06:13 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2011 11:16:59 GMT -6
Hawking is brilliant..but I think he lacks some basic humanitarian levels (I think that normal considering his physical stressors) but what I can't wrap myself around..is the idea..oh well we've overloaded this planet..lets just find another. quote: But our genetic code still carries the selfish and aggressive instincts that were of survival advantage in the past. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. "Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain lurking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space." Into space along with those selfish and aggressive instincts. Thinking about our genetic code and our instinct for survival (which is brutally strong) doesn't make me feel good about interaction with other species. We take. Throughout history we take..land from the Indians..flesh from Africa..minerals from lands stolen from others..and we'd do it again and again. There is a greed in us that is like a hungry monster...and nothing seems to fill the stomach of the monster.
|
|
|
Post by satansrini on Nov 19, 2011 11:36:06 GMT -6
Ok... let me defend my buddy Hawking.... ;D
but what I can't wrap myself around..is the idea..oh well we've overloaded this planet..lets just find another. - It is actually quite simple. We consume food at home, we get more.. We are as tiny as 1 foot when born.. we consume more food as we grow. Same with people and numbers. We consume land, water and natural resources, as we grow more in number. We will reach a point where we will have to adjust too much. You buy land these days to make a house. 500 years ago, you'd just find some empty space and make house there and it is yours. This is still followed in certain countries today. Supply and demand.
Into space along with those selfish and aggressive instincts. - Yes. But without such instincts as curiosity, selfishness and aggression, we won't be where we are. Every species and everyone is always selfish to a certain degree. All animals too. Only we'd introduced the concept of money which only acts as a super catalyst!
Thinking about our genetic code and our instinct for survival (which is brutally strong) doesn't make me feel good about interaction with other species. - Interactions are not based on emotions but on necessity. This is always the case - atleast in the context. There is an interaction between wildebeast and lions. It need not be pretty. But it serves some purpose. One thing is we are only part of some yet un-understood maze. We are not the beginning. We won't be the end. Therefore there are always friends, there are always enemies and there are always we simply don't care about - say a lot of animals/plants on our own Earth. For example - what compassion do we extend to grass on which we walk upon. We at the most appreciate its presence.
Besides, the universe is soo vast and so diverse, I don't think we will have a problem occupying another earth without competition!
Throughout history we take..land from the Indians..flesh from Africa..minerals from lands stolen from others..and we'd do it again and again. - I have always believed that compassion only manifests when we identify ourselves with what/who we are in contact with. It also depends on how we identify with the object of interest - as equals, superiors or inferiors.
We don't extend the same compassion to other life like a hen or a cow. We rarely think the beef or the chicken we are now eating drew breath a few hrs/days ago. But when we see someone breaking their leg on the street, we feel pain. This is because we identify ourselves with them.
All of these are nice to think of and debate. But it won't make a difference to the need to be addressed. To live we need to eat so we kill. Expansion is inevitable. May be not as soon as Hawking says. But It has to be done.
Regards, Srinivas
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2011 21:15:48 GMT -6
You do not need to defend Hawking..he's a very brilliant man and I admire him..I just don't agree that we should take our inherit genetics and inflict them on other races we might encounter. I suspect though..my worries would be needless because I don't think we'd be allowed to leave our little neck of the woods.
|
|
|
Post by satansrini on Nov 19, 2011 23:04:05 GMT -6
I just said 'defend' on a funny note!!!! For once my thoughts were shared by someone mainstream.. its a nice feeling you know.. hehehe..
About expansion to other planets, like I said earlier - there are a lot of options. I think once we get there technologically steps will be taken as appropriate.
Imagine.... we identify a planet 100 ly away and it suits us totally. But then there is another within 10 ly which is not 100% perfect, is uninhabited and with little tweaks to atmosphere, suits us. If making tweaks to the uninhabited 10 ly planet is easier and cost-effective, we are obviously going to do it.
This is all evolution. As we develop technically, we would also develop our style of thinking and spirituality - albeit at slower speeds. See how much we have changed - the Church does not kill people because they don't agree with it. People are relatively open minded. We have learnt a little compassion - lest Whales, Tigers and a lot of other species would have been extinct by late 1800s. So the awareness also begins with some people and spreads. In time we will get there and have what it takes.
I personally don't think. we are being 'disallowed' as such to go out there. But if I were to assume you are right and we really are being not allowed - it may be because we are not yet there - mainly in terms of mental/spiritual development - which would otherwise have us act more responsibly.
Regards, Srinivas
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Nov 20, 2011 23:00:13 GMT -6
I think we would be better off if we just take care of the planet we are on. After all...we are already here and we know the Earth is capable of supporting life. Why mess it up?
|
|
|
Post by satansrini on Nov 21, 2011 2:16:25 GMT -6
I think we would be better off if we just take care of the planet we are on. After all...we are already here and we know the Earth is capable of supporting life. Why mess it up? Yes.. that is the first step we have to take. I have mentioned this in one of my earlier posts also. To lookout into the space does not mean we don't take care of this one. It is only to ensure there is enough place and space for healthy expansion. The first thing we have to do is preserve this planet. That is how we will learn how we can preserve or alter other planets to ensure they can be inhabited by us. Regards, Srinivas
|
|
|
Post by ufo4peace on Nov 27, 2011 5:41:58 GMT -6
I think we would be better off if we just take care of the planet we are on. After all...we are already here and we know the Earth is capable of supporting life. Why mess it up? Humans are incapable of taking care of the planet they are on. Going to space would give you the best chance of survival after the planet has been exploited and used up.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Nov 27, 2011 11:10:49 GMT -6
If they can't take care of the planet they won't be able to take care of space either. I suppose if a handful of intelligent responsible people took off they might be able to survive while the rest of the morons destroyed themselves.
|
|
|
Post by ufo4peace on Nov 28, 2011 5:52:13 GMT -6
If they can't take care of the planet they won't be able to take care of space either. I suppose if a handful of intelligent responsible people took off they might be able to survive while the rest of the morons destroyed themselves. We're an ape-like species that exploits its resources and is preoccupied with tribal warfare. I'm sure in the future there will be some remnant of us out there for awhile or what we evolved into with technology. In some close encounter reports it is claimed that some humans are living on other planets. They took a one way ticket with aliens. That deserves another thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2011 10:44:08 GMT -6
That doesn't mean those close encounter reports are real or accurate. Only a fraction of people on this planet are war mongers..another fraction are serial killers and rapists and another fraction are just honest hard working souls who just try to support their families and don't have time for the above. Then there is the section of the population that IS concerned with the planet..that does have an open mind and is trying hard to undo damage done by us to the earth. Those people deserve the ticket into space as decent representatives. Unfortunately...the ones who might get there would be the same ones who have greedily destroyed the planet we have. As a species..we have a LOT of growing to do before we belong out there.
|
|